I don't like the title much. IMO there is no American empire, or if there is its rather insignificant (mostly Pacific Islands). Being involved in wars and/or nation building overseas is not enough to make an empire.
Romney did not lose because of the effects of Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he lose because he ran a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the Republicans could have chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama benefited from a slight uptick in the economy due to the business cycle
If Romney ran a better campaign or the party fielded a strong candidate, if Sandy didn't happen, and esp. if the economy was worse, and perhaps if Todd Akin had not become the Republican candidate or if he kept his mouth shut about rape, then Romney very likely would have won.
OTOH the author still has a bit of a point. Things that negatively affect a candidate's chances are going to happen. So you can't simply blame them. Part of it has to be on the candidate or the campaign (which he seems to mostly reject as an explanations), or on the ideas and political coalition behind the party (which is his explanation). I think he dismisses the first two a bit too easily, but it seems there has been at least a bit of a turn away from support of free enterprise and private imitative, towards more support for crony capitalism (The bailout of GM and Chrysler was fairly popular at least to the extent of many people thinking "we had to do it"), and big government spending programs.
Ronald Reagan himself could not win an election in today’s America.
I don't think that's an accurate statement. Romney only lost by about 50 or 51 percent to 48 percent.
the inescapable conclusion that the electorate is dumb – ignorant, and uninformed.
I think the average voter is "rationally ignorant". The odds of their vote deciding the election are probably about the same or less then the odds of them being hit by lighting on the way to vote. Voting to an extent is a way to cheer for your party, ideological, or identity politics team.
are unintelligent and easily swayed by emotion and raw populism. That is the indelicate way of saying that too many people vote with their hearts and not their heads. That is why Obama did not have to produce a second term agenda, or even defend his first-term record. He needed only to portray Mitt Romney as a rapacious capitalist who throws elderly women over a cliff, when he is not just snatching away their cancer medication, while starving the poor and cutting taxes for the rich. Obama could get away with saying that “Romney wants the rich to play by a different set of rules” – without ever defining what those different rules were; with saying that the “rich should pay their fair share” – without ever defining what a “fair share” is; with saying that Romney wants the poor, elderly and sick to “fend for themselves” – without even acknowledging that all these government programs are going bankrupt, their current insolvency only papered over by deficit spending. Obama could get away with it because he knew he was talking to dunces waving signs and squealing at any sight of him.
That's largely true.
But I think the author reads too much in to one election. Yes there is a lot of ignorance among voters (maybe even more among non-voters, but they aren't that relevant to the points he raises), but the idea that the electorate has decisively and perhaps permanently rejected economic freedom and fiscal sanity (or the Republicans, which is a different point, their politicians sometimes don't support economic freedom and fiscal sanity, and even when they do the part can be rejected for other reasons), is overblown considering that the election was close (less so in the electoral vote total, but that speaks more to the Dems strong ground game in the battleground states, then a sweeping endorsement of Obama or rejection of Republicans, also those states where also close). |
